Rumours: Nikon D400 & 200-500VR

[Roland Vink]

Ilkka's question would also apply to the 18-300/3.5-6.3 which is the same aperture at the long end. Maybe someone who owns the 18-300 will be able to tell us. The manual makes no statement about this so I would assume it works with all the AF sensors (maybe not terribly well). After all, F6.3 is only 1/3 stop slower than f5.6.

[Akira]

I hope "all" the up-and-coming Nikkor lenses to have fluorine coating on the outer elements.

[Fanie]

Every time I read about the launch of a 150-600 or thus 200-500 I get excited, but then I wonder if it would be any better than my 300 AFI with the 1.7 TC combination.

You do get the luxury of a zoom range and stabilisation, but I'm not yet convinced it will produce optically better results?

[tommiejeep]

If all of the rumours are right, or at least partially, August and September could prove to be really interesting    If memory serves me right the D3 came winging in without many rumours and that was after a constant' Nikon will not make an Fx Body'.  Maybe a D400 (or some such) could make a surprise appearance.   A smaller, lighter 24-70 2.8 vr could get my attention ,  Same size and weight , or heavier, would not.
Cheers,
Tom

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Tom: I'm with you there, a lighter 24-70mm would certainly catch my attention. Would fit my D750 quite well.

[Bjørn J]

Tom: I'm with you there, a lighter 24-70mm would certainly catch my attention. Would fit my D750 quite well.

Adding VR in a lens tend to increase its weigth and size, unfortunately. And if those photos of the new lenses are real, it does not look very much smaller. My hope is for a better 24-70. The current is decent on the D810, but not stellar.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

I'm keeping my hopes up because of this rumor: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/02/03/some-interesting-nikon-patents-including-a-nikkor-24-70mm-f2-8-pf-vr-lens.aspx/

"In May, 2014 Nikon filed a patent for a new 24-70mm f/2.8 lens with Phase Fresnel (PF) element (diffractive lens). I already mentioned few times that a new 24-70mm f/2.8 VR lens is on the horizon - if Nikon really uses a PF lens in the next version, the size and weight will be significantly reduced. Adding VR will make this a very desirable lens for every Nikon shooter."

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I'm keeping my hopes up because of this rumor: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/02/03/some-interesting-nikon-patents-including-a-nikkor-24-70mm-f2-8-pf-vr-lens.aspx/

Right but in this interview

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/interview-with-nikon-rep-about-nikkor.htm

the Nikon manager basically said that the PF design would not make the 24-70 much smaller. I think they must have investigated the option but probably will go with a conventional refractive optics design.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Thanks for saving me a bunch of money

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I am generally happy with the existing 24-70 Nikkor but in the out of focus background there is some color fringing towards the corners. Also the autofocus while it works fairly well it is not quite as consistently accurate as with the 70-200/2.8 II. I hope for  improved autofocus accuracy in the new version of the 24-70. Optically, the existing lens has some field curvature and it can be tricky to get a group shot towards the 24mm end to be sharp also in the outer areas of the frame. I've found that using another lens can give a better result in this situation but it can be inconvenient during an event to have to remember to switch lenses for groups when the 24-70mm range would otherwise work well.

If the new 24-70 has fluorine coating I will be very happy as sometimes one must enter into places where there is "stuff" in the air. For example in weddings it is common nowadays that some documentary photographs of the hair salon are made, and the hair spray makes for a beautiful visual effect (but I imagine it would not do the front element anything good if exposed). I also think the 14-24 should get it in the future as this lens can not really take any protective filter and I did use mine sometimes close to water, too close for comfort. 

I hope the 200-500 can get a Kirk style aftermarket collar. It looks like there may be space for it. 

[Erik Lund]

The current 24-70mm 2.8 AFS is very weak in the corners at 24mm also it has a lot of barrel distortion up close.

[Bjørn J]

The current 24-70mm 2.8 AFS is very weak in the corners at 24mm also it has a lot of barrel distortion up close.

I agree, and it also has barrel distortion on further distances at 24mm. That is the weakest focal length on the 24-70. I normally use the 14-24mm at 24mm when I need that angle, it is so much better than the 24-70.

[Peter Connan]

Well, it would make sense that Nikon would launch the D400 now, as I have (after waiting two years for them to do just this) just given up and bought a D750...

 

[simato73]

Well, it would make sense that Nikon would launch the D400 now, as I have (after waiting two years for them to do just this) just given up and bought a D750...

 

You did what Nikon wanted you to do...
As a small consolation there must be loads of people who did like you.

[Peter Connan]

I am sure you are right.

Sorry, drifting off topic a bit here, but having used it for just two days, I can't say I am sorry. The D750 is a huge step up from the D7000!

I guess most guys with long lenses point them at the moon sometimes, and I am certainly one of them. This one was taken last night, using the same 500mm f4 and TC1.4EII I have used several times on the D7000. And despite having less pixels on target, being in a built-up area (thus possible light pollution) and hand-holding it instead of putting it on a tripod, there is a lot more detail than I have ever managed to capture with the D7000.